Unless I am talking to someone who might be receptive to the
Gospel, I usually start by showing them the problems with their own hopes and
beliefs. Why? They will not be receptive to the Good News unless they first know
that they need it.
Let me use an example to illustrate this principle. Today,
the vast majority believe in moral relativism. According to this belief,
morality is just something we make up to serve us and our society. Morality
doesn’t have an independent existence. It depends on what we decide to live by
and how we were raised.
Consequently, we lack any objective or absolute moral
standard by which we can judge others. Therefore, we cannot judge a Hitler or
an Osama Bin Laden, since there is nothing that makes our moral judgments any
more valid than theirs. Besides, I might attempt to teach my children that they
shouldn’t steal or bully. However, I cannot teach them these principles on the
basis of right and wrong, just or unjust, since these concepts are just ideas
that we created. Instead, I am forced
to appeal to self-interest:
·
Johnny, do not steal because your self-esteem
will suffer. Do not bully, because someone will bully you.
In other words, I try to show the moral relativist the
inadequacies or fallacies of their beliefs in hope they then might become
receptive to better beliefs – a morality from above!
This was often the strategy of Jesus. He would ask His
opponents to state the source of their hope and beliefs and then take them for
a trial run to demonstrate how they failed.
A lawyer tested Jesus with the question: “What must I do to
inherit eternal life?” Instead of telling the lawyer to believe in Him, Jesus
asked him to state his thoughts on the subject, something the lawyer was very
happy to do:
·
He [Jesus] said to him, “What is written in the
Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God
with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with
all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have
answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” (Luke 10:26-28)
The lawyer had little understanding of grace. He was
convinced that he could earn his way to heaven through law-keeping. He,
therefore, believed he was entitled to heaven and had little need for the mercy
of God, the hope that Jesus had come to offer. Therefore, he was content to
merely test Jesus.
Since Jesus perceived that the lawyer was not amenable to
the Good News, He had to first demonstrate that the lawyer’s hope was baseless.
He did this through His parable about the Good Samaritan. If the lawyer
expected to earn eternal life, he would have to live as sacrificially as the
Good Samaritan. However, even before Jesus related this parable, the lawyer
became defensive, even in regards to his own answer, and the parable reinforced
the fact that the lawyer’s hope was a false one. He could never be good enough.
Admittedly, we tend to stumble over Jesus’ words. It seems
that He had actually endorsed the lawyer’s worldview, affirming
salvation-by-law-keeping: “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will
live.” (Luke 10:28). Then He concluded His parable with the admonition to “Go
and do likewise” (verse 37).
Instead, we should understand Jesus’ final words to mean “Go
and do likewise, since you believe that you can earn eternal life in this manner.”
Of course, we should all do as the Good Samaritan had done, but we will never
earn eternal life in this manner. Instead, by attempting to do so, it should
soon become evident that we are spiritual failures who cannot earn any blessing
from God. Instead, we are blessed by grace and not be merit.
If we fail to understand how Jesus argued, we will be confused about many of His teachings. They will contradict many of the things He had taught about salvation by grace through faith (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:29; 8:24).
If we fail to understand how Jesus argued, we will be confused about many of His teachings. They will contradict many of the things He had taught about salvation by grace through faith (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:29; 8:24).
Jesus had literally called a Syrophoenician Gentile woman a “dog,”
who was ineligible to receive any of the blessings of God:
·
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help
me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw
it to the dogs.” (Matthew 15:24-26)
This seems to contradict Jesus’ other teachings and actions.
Clearly, Jesus had regarded the Gentiles as just as eligible as Jews. He even
announced that this Gentile’s faith was great, something He had never said to
His own Apostles or to any other Jew (Matthew 15:28; also 8:10).
Besides, when Jesus issued His Apostles His Grand Commission,
He sent them out into the world of the Gentiles (Matthew 28:19-20). This
seeming contradiction had led one “theologian” to call Jesus a “recovering
racist.” However, there is another way to understand this account, which is
more in keeping with the teachings of Scripture.
In this case, Jesus’ own disciples were His opponents. They
were the racists who looked down on Gentiles as “dogs” and not deserving of
anything from God. He, therefore, wanted to show them the fallacy of their
beliefs and purposely took them on a trip to Gentle Phoenicia. They had wanted
Jesus to send this Gentle woman away because they regarded her as a nuisance,
and so Jesus played along with them and didn’t answer her a word. Then, He
called her a “dog.” However, she proved that she had more wisdom,
understanding, and faith than the bunch of them, showing them that their
worldview was mistaken.
Elsewhere, when the religious leadership criticized Jesus
for hanging out with sinners, Jesus answered them according to their own
beliefs:
·
And Jesus answered them, “Those who are well
have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call
the righteous but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:31-32)
From this, we might be tempted to think that Jesus regarded
the scribes and Pharisees as “righteous.” However, in view of the rest of His
teachings, it is clear that He did not. He was merely showing them the
fallacies of their beliefs. If these disdained sinners are truly sick, as the
leadership regarded them, isn’t it appropriate that Doctor Jesus should tend to
them? Of course! Therefore, the leadership had no reason to criticize Jesus in
this regard.
It seems that they would often bring this charge against
Jesus:
·
And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled,
saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.” (Luke 15:2)
Once again, to illustrate that their beliefs were baseless
and even anti-Scriptural, He told the parables of the lost coin and the lost
sheep, concluding:
·
“Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in
heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who
need no repentance.” (Luke 15:7, 9-10)
Did Jesus believe that there are righteous who did not need
repentance? Of course not! However, His opponents believed this way, and it was
they whom Jesus had been addressing to show them that their opinion of sinners
didn’t comport with God’s. Clearly, Jesus believed that all needed to repent
(Luke 13:1-5; 24:47)
It is important that we do not take Jesus’ teachings out of context.
If we do, as in this case, we might tragically conclude that some are above repentance.
This illustrates that we must interpret any one verse by the light shed from
other verses.
One final example – A rich young man came to Jesus to ask
Him about the way to eternal life:
·
And as he was setting out on his journey, a man
ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to
inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one
is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not
commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor
your father and mother.’” (Mark 10:17-19)
Although this man had seriously inquired about eternal life,
it became clear that he too believed that he could earn it. In fact, he
believed that he was entitled because he had kept all the commandments since
youth. However, he was in denial about his true status before God. Instead,
Jesus had taught that the Commandment against murder also pertained to what was
going on in the mind and heart, as well as the Commandment against adultery
(Matthew 5).
Perceiving this, Jesus understood that he wasn’t yet ready
to hear the Gospel. He had to first be shown that his hope in law-keeping was
an illusory hope. He too needed the mercy of God. Therefore, Jesus had to bring
this man back to the law to show him that he was unable to keep it:
·
And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said
to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor,
and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” (Mark 10:21)
Could this final command bring the young man to eternal
life? Of course, not by itself! However, it brought this man to despair and one
step closer to the Gospel and his need for the mercy of God. Jesus used the man’s
unfounded hope to bring him to despair and, hopefully, to an openness to the
one true Hope.
If we fail to fully comprehend Jesus’ strategy, we will
wrongly conclude that He was teaching a salvation by law-keeping in opposition to
Jesus’ other teachings and the teachings of the rest of the New Testament (Romans
3:10-23; Galatians 2:16).
In light of this, I must admit that interpretation can sometimes
be demanding. It is for this reason that God has given us pastors and teachers
to lead us to a true knowledge of God through His Word (Ephesians 4:11-14).
No comments:
Post a Comment